Will Free Trade End Poverty?
Tomorrow is the five-year anniversary of the Doha Declaration that marked the beginning of the Doha round of World Trade Organization (WTO) negotiations. From Doha, Qatar, representatives of the WTO's member nations declared, "The majority of WTO members are developing countries. We seek to place their needs and interests at the heart of the Work Programme adopted in this Declaration."
As the talks progressed, it became increasingly clear that the negotiations would do little to address the concerns of the developing world as developed countries pursued a business-as-usual approach. What made this round extraordinary was not that it was the first "development" round but instead that developing countries refused to accept trade policies that remained skewed toward wealthy countries.
Nowhere was the contrast between the needs and visions of the developed and developing countries more evident than at trade negotiations in Canc£n, Mexico, in 2003. Talks collapsed after only four days when it became clear that the United States and European Union would continue trade-distorting agricultural subsidies that dump below-cost crops on global food markets, devastating farmers across the world and especially in developing countries. A group of developing countries, the G20, refused to open their markets to the developed world until these unfair policies were abandoned.
While negotiations floundered, the World Bank projected that developing countries' gains from the Doha agenda were minor, if present at all. Respected research institutions such as the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace (CEIP) followed up with projections even lower than the World Bank's estimates, calling into question the motives behind the developed countries' trade agendas. Reports from CEIP and the Center for Economic Policy Research (CEPR) showed that Least Developed Countries would wind up as losers from the round because of the adjustment costs associated with implementing an agreement. Any small gains that would occur as a result of the round would be skewed toward the developed world.
Even the Doha Declaration's attempt to address public health crises such as AIDS was inadequate. Economist Mark Weisbrot projected that the costs to developing nations of compliance with WTO global patent rules would outweigh those countries' gains from Doha. Jagdish Bhagwati, economist and author of "In Defense of Globalization," has called developed countries' enforcement of patents on life-saving drugs unjust.
With the Doha round stalled, many are asking why the talks appear to have failed. The answer is clear. Developing countries will no longer accept the unfair trade rules that are imposed upon them by the developed world in the WTO.
For further discussion of how the current trade regime is unfair to the developing world, come to "The Doha Development Round: Will Free Trade End Poverty" on Tuesday, Nov. 14, in Ward 2.
Andrew Wolf is a sophomore in the School of International Service.
Response to Enerson column
Caleb Enerson runs his position as the right political commentator for the Eagle in the same spirit as his forerunner, Will Haun. For the unenlightened, Haun had contributed many an opinion piece which resulted in a deluge of outraged letters and corrections last year.
Enerson starts off alluding to FDR and Lincoln's critics, insisting comparisons abound with our current commander in chief. May I remind Enerson that, according to the Gallup Organization, FDR's approval rating pre-Pearl Harbor was 79 percent; post-Pearl Harbor his rating shot up to 84 percent. Bush's highest approval rating was in August 2001 at 50 percent; this has since precipitously dropped to the 34 percent of today. As icing on the cake, Vice President Cheney's approval rating is at 18 percent, according to a CBS poll.
Enerson then postulates causality for the rise in critics. Rightfully, he suggests this discourse is tied to the Internet. Enerson ironically uses Keith Olbermann's words of "an idiot with a modem" to describe the state of affairs. Mr. Olbermann's full statement was, "Matt Drudge . has gone from being an idiot with a modem to an idiot with a modem and a television show on the most irresponsible network in America." Matt Drudge is the proprietor of the right-winged Drudge Report, receiving 400 million hits monthly compared to the oh-so-influential Daily Kos' 15 million.
Enerson decries the words of those who troll Web forums, claiming their comments as a reflection of the Web site themselves. Enerson, as many in the mainstream media, is careless in his lack of delineation between a Web site's remarks and those of its visitors. In apt comparison, one may as well decry a business for graffiti on its walls.
Transitioning as subtly as a pirouetting rhinoceros, he reaches deep for the eternal voodoo doll of Republicans: Clinton. He cites many liberals' calling Bush a war criminal as spiteful retribution for harsh criticism of Clinton. Building on this, he drubs a horse's skeletal remains by saying Clinton was rightfully criticized as a liar. He defends the commander in chief by claiming, "only the most rabidly anti-Bush person would actually believe Bush deliberately lied."
Mr. Enerson, I wish I could enjoy your innocence about those in public office. I am sure LBJ never lied. Nor Nixon. Nor Clinton. Nor Abramoff. Nor Hastert. Nor Foley. Nor. well, I think my point has been made.
Mr. Enerson may not know this, but in the Nuremberg trials several Nazis were convicted of being war criminals on the basis of water-boarding prisoners, the same technique that Bush, as commander in chief, ordered on detainees in Gitmo. Perhaps this is why the United States Military Commissions Act of 2006 contained a small clause retroactively clearing all Bush administration officials of war crimes post-Sept. 11, 2001. Mr. Enerson is technically right that Bush is not a war criminal - because a Republican majority has exonerated him of responsibility.
His closing is a plea for a bipartisan atmosphere, with toleration and respect. It is odd that now his party is in the minority, he is willing to work bipartisanly. Too bad the Republicans gutted political rights of the minority in the House and Senate when Democrats held it. Republicans will have to sleep in the bed they made.
Conrad N. Bukoski is a senior in the School of Public Affairs.
Why The Republicans Lost
This week, the Republicans suffered a defeat at the polls, losing about 30 seats in the House and six seats in the Senate. After a defeat such as this, it is necessary to determine why a loss such as this occurred. To me, it is quite simple: Republicans forgot the ideals that brought them to power in the first place.
Perhaps the main reason for the Republican defeat was the lack of a coherent Iraq strategy. Let me make this clear: I still believe that removing Saddam Hussein was a necessary step toward pacifying the Middle East. But it appears that the war planning has been mistaken almost constantly since the end of major combat operations. I believe much of the blame must go to Donald Rumsfeld for refusing to put enough men on the ground to win the war. We can't win wars just with smart bombs. This revolution in military affairs has failed. And most voters did not have the unshakable belief that the war was necessary, as I possess. We witnessed many right-leaning independents vote the other way on Tuesday, and I imagine this is why.
A further undermining of conservative ideals was the amount of scandals present among the Republican membership.
Republicans swept into power in 1994 in large part due to Democratic scandals. The Republicans pledged themselves to be the party of upstanding integrity. While I would argue they have done many positive things to clean up the government while in power, too many members became addicted to the perks of power. Whether they were tied too closely to disgraced lobbyists or liked sending dirty e-mails to congressional pages, the self-styled high standards of Republicans were eroded far too much.
Another betrayal of principles among congressional Republicans was their love of big spending. Typically, we imagine the Democrats as the party of big government and the Republicans of limited government. No more. In the last few congresses, the GOP joined the Democrats in eating at the trough of government largesse. How can the Republicans claim to be the party of small government when they propose new entitlement programs and Bridges to Nowhere? Much of the President's "compassionate conservatism" is just a sell-out to bigger government. And this pleased no one, as liberals thought that the Republicans weren't profligate enough. Big government made few friends and a host of enemies.
One must credit the Democrats for finally becoming pragmatic and running some candidates who weren't the reincarnation of Michael Dukakis. Candidates such as Jim Webb in Virginia and Bob Casey in Pennsylvania were generally much more moderate than the typical liberal Democrat in Congress. Webb was the Navy Secretary under President Reagan. Casey ran as a pro-life, pro-gun Democrat. Republicans had a hard time labeling these men far-out liberals. While I wouldn't have supported these candidates (and in Casey's race I didn't), they did make it easier for moderate conservatives to vote for a change.
What I think this election was about was disapproval of how the current Republican Party was governing, not a rebuke of conservatism. More people identify as conservative than liberal in opinion polls. It may not seem that way on campus or inside the Beltway, but there is a whole nation out there that is moderately conservative. The victories of the above-mentioned gentlemen show that, if anything, the Democrats won because they shifted right. The challenge now for conservatives is to reform the Republican Party and hopefully ride it to victory in 2008.
Chris Palko is a sophomore in the School of Public Affairs. He is the Public Relations/Media Relations Director of the AU College Republicans.
